Tony Perez vs. Gil Hodges?

[abacab]

Don't forget that Gil also managed a team that was a vast underdog, and perenial laughing stock, to a World Series championship. Who knows how many more they could have won if he hadn't have died young. This fact coupled with his stats place him ahead of Perez IMO.

Would you put Jack McKeon in the Hall?

[abacab]

Longevity??
Hodges played '43 - '63.
Perez played '64 - '86. 2 extra years.

Late in Perez' career he was with Boston for 3 seasons and split time as DH. DH can lengthen anyone's career. I think the Longevity argument is weak.

Hodges was a regular '48 - '59.
Perez was a regular '67 - '80.
So Perez does have a small longevity advantage - he was a starter for two more seasons than Hodges. After '80, Perez was a DH for a couple seasons, then he went back to the NL as a part-time 1B and pinch hitter. Whether that counts as extra longevity is debatable.

[stan opdyke]

Hodges was a regular '48 - '59.
Perez was a regular '67 - '80.
So Perez does have a small longevity advantage - he was a starter for two more seasons than Hodges. After '80, Perez was a DH for a couple seasons, then he went back to the NL as a part-time 1B and pinch hitter. Whether that counts as extra longevity is debatable.

Regarding longevity, Hodges was in the fighting in World War II. Perez is in the Hall and as I have said elsewhere I would put Hodges, Keith Hernandez and Dick Allen there too. What I don't get is the statement that Perez should get some extra credit because he played third base at times. He did not play it well, nor did Allen in my opinion. Hodges started his career as a catcher and as I understand it he was moved to first not because he was a terrible catcher, but because Campy was so good. No one will ever know for sure, but I suspect Hodges would have been a better third baseman than either Perez or Allen. I don't think too many would argue that Perez or Allen were better defensive first basemen than Gil.

[RuthMayBond]

What I don't get is the statement that Perez should get some extra credit because he played third base at times. He did not play it well, nor did Allen in my opinion.

His team still deemed him worthy enough to play, and FIVE years for each, not just a temporary fill-in

<No one will ever know for sure, but I suspect Hodges would have been a better third baseman than either Perez or Allen.>

but still speculation

<I don't think too many would argue that Allen w[as a] better defensive first basemen than Gil.>

There's not enough 1B defense in the world for Hodges to overcome Allen's offense

[abacab]

Regarding longevity, Hodges was in the fighting in World War II.

Do you think that affected his career length? Hodges was 21 when the war ended. Without the war, he stays in the minors and probably gets called up at about the same time.

What I don't get is the statement that Perez should get some extra credit because he played third base at times. He did not play it well, nor did Allen in my opinion. Hodges started his career as a catcher and as I understand it he was moved to first not because he was a terrible catcher, but because Campy was so good. No one will ever know for sure, but I suspect Hodges would have been a better third baseman than either Perez or Allen. I don't think too many would argue that Perez or Allen were better defensive first basemen than Gil.

Perez gets extra credit because his versatility helped his team, and because third base is a tougher position than first. If Perez had split his time between first and left field, I wouldn't be as inclined to give him extra credit. My impression is that Perez was at least a decent 3B (and Allen was subpar). Hodges was definitely a better fielding 1B than Perez, no one disputes that. I didn't know Hodges started as a catcher. Maybe he could have played third, maybe not. If Hodges had played his whole career at third, I'd be supporting him for the Hall. But there are too many first basemen with numbers just as good or better, that no one even considers for the Hall.

[Tigerfan1974]

--Perez played in 700 more games and got 800 more hits. He also leads in every other counting stat. Arguing that he doesn't have an advantage in longevity is foolish.
--Counting up how many times a players team made/won to the WS as some sort of litmus test on their greatness is even more ridiculous. The Yankees won 8 pennants and 6 championhips in the 10 years Charlie Silvera played for them. Does that make him a Hall of Famer? Winning the pennant is a team accomplishment. Having great teammates doesn't make you a great player.

No, but there needs to be great players, especially starters, on the team.
Silvera, whoever he is, doesn't belong there of course.
But if they are going to include the likes of Perez, or Mazeroski, or Rizzuto, or even other marginals like Bunning, then Hodges at least deserves consideration.

If you combine his life in baseball, i.e. also as a manager, he very well should receive some consideration.

Now don't go off on me because I know that the 2, player and manager, are mutually exclusive. But he should get a nod, as other more questionable have.

[leecemark]

--If you think we should induct everybody better than the worst players in the Hall then several new wings need to be added. Not sure they have the construction budget to get that accomplished. Being better than players who were bad selections does not make you a good selection.

[abacab]

Now don't go off on me because I know that the 2, player and manager, are mutually exclusive.

I actually do think that Hodges should get some credit for that. However, I think his supporters are giving him way too much credit for one memorable year. Mike Scoscia was a very good player who managed a team to a WS victory, and no one is supporting him for the Hall (yet). I think Hodges is getting credit for "how many more championships would he have won if he'd lived?" Most likely, zero.

[stan opdyke]

Do you think that affected his career length? Hodges was 21 when the war ended. Without the war, he stays in the minors and probably gets called up at about the same time.



Perez gets extra credit because his versatility helped his team, and because third base is a tougher position than first. If Perez had split his time between first and left field, I wouldn't be as inclined to give him extra credit. My impression is that Perez was at least a decent 3B (and Allen was subpar). Hodges was definitely a better fielding 1B than Perez, no one disputes that. I didn't know Hodges started as a catcher. Maybe he could have played third, maybe not. If Hodges had played his whole career at third, I'd be supporting him for the Hall. But there are too many first basemen with numbers just as good or better, that no one even considers for the Hall.

Gil was fighting in World War II, I do believe. Some guys were playing baseball during the war while they were in the service. I assume those war years put him a bit behind in developing into a major league player. The guys who were playing while in the military may have lost some major legue time, but they were still able to develop their game. I would think that the service teams were at least the eqivilent of minor league baseball.

I am curious (not necessarily critical mind you) about your comment that had Gil played third you would think he should be in the Hall. I can see the positional argument for players up the middle (short, second, catcher and center) but not so much for the corners. It is not too dificult to imagine Gil at least standing out at third for twenty years and catching what was hit to him. He did that at first base. His arm was good enough to be a catcher so it is doubtful he would have had trouble making the long throw to first. If he is a good enough player to be in the Hall, why penalize him for being a first baseman? Unlike say Allen, he was not converted to first because he could not play anywhere else.

[abacab]

Well, I think third is definitely a tougher position to play than first - a lot more hard ground balls, for sure. Even though Hodges was a good 1B, it's still a big assumption that he would have made a good 3B (though not as big an assumption as it would be if he were a poor 1B, a la Frank Thomas or someone like that).

That being said, it's easy to see how Hodges ended up at first. The Dodgers were a terrific defensive team. Campanella catching, Reese at short, Robinson (who would've been shortstop on most teams) at second, they were all brilliant. They also had Billy Cox at third, and he has a repuation as a good fielder (the stats don't necessarily back that up, but I'll put that aside for now). So even if Hodges had the ability to play third or catcher, those spots were already filled, and he had nowhere to go but first, where he made a great defensive infield even better.

Good debate. I still don't support Hodges for the Hall, but I'm starting to understand his case.

[jalbright]

Regarding longevity, Hodges was in the fighting in World War II.

I'm a great one for advocating giving guys wartime service credit, but only when it's clear it's deserved. Hodges was 19 in 1943 and he got all of two AB in an already wartime weakened league. He didn't come back to the majors until 1947 (unless there was something odd, he should have been able to play sometime in 1946), and then hit .156 in 77 AB. The next season he got to play full time (at age 24) and rang up this line, mostly as a first baseman: .249 average, 11 HR, 70 RBI, .311 on base, .376 slugging. It's hard to see proof that he would have been ready earlier than he was. I know, he might have done so with more opportunity to face tough pitching than he probably got in the service, but maybe not.

Jim Albright

[stan opdyke]

I'm a great one for advocating giving guys wartime service credit, but only when it's clear it's deserved. Hodges was 19 in 1943 and he got all of two AB in an already wartime weakened league. He didn't come back to the majors until 1947 (unless there was something odd, he should have been able to play sometime in 1946), and then hit .156 in 77 AB. The next season he got to play full time (at age 24) and rang up this line, mostly as a first baseman: .249 average, 11 HR, 70 RBI, .311 on base, .376 slugging. It's hard to see proof that he would have been ready earlier than he was. I know, he might have done so with more opportunity to face tough pitching than he probably got in the service, but maybe not.

Jim Albright

I don't think he got any playing time in the service. When I was a kid I remember reading a biography about him and if I recall correctly he was in combat during WWII. Some guys were baseball players in army fatigues or navy blues during the war and others were not.

[yanks0714]

One point I want to make on this. It is true that Gil started as a catcher but I seem to recall where I read that he was moved to first base because he didn't have the arm to play catcher.

Of course, Campy came on the scene in '48 so Gil was either blocked or had to move elsewhere.

Has anyone else heard of this about his arm?

[kramer_47]

I'm a great one for advocating giving guys wartime service credit, but only when it's clear it's deserved. Hodges was 19 in 1943 and he got all of two AB in an already wartime weakened league. He didn't come back to the majors until 1947 (unless there was something odd, he should have been able to play sometime in 1946), and then hit .156 in 77 AB. The next season he got to play full time (at age 24) and rang up this line, mostly as a first baseman: .249 average, 11 HR, 70 RBI, .311 on base, .376 slugging. It's hard to see proof that he would have been ready earlier than he was. I know, he might have done so with more opportunity to face tough pitching than he probably got in the service, but maybe not.

Jim Albright

Stan is right he still missed 2 years that he could have been playing somewhere and come up in 1947 and be ready for the big leagues, he really wasn't ready till 1949 because they force fed him in 1947-48. By the way the Dodgers sent Gil to Newport News Va to learn how to be a catcher before they signed Campy and switched Gil to 1st.

[jalbright]

There might be a point here, but it needs a lot more development to be persuasive at all. See the post in the other Hodges thread we've sparred on for the kind of detail I think is needed. One particular concern is when did Hodges get out of the service? Most guys were out by the spring of 1946. Was Hodges an exception? Was he playing ball in 1946? Where and how much? How did he do? Show us that it wasn't physical maturity he needed, but specific baseball skills. I'm not willing to buy that military service impedes physical maturity, but a lack of playing time due to military service certainly could impede the development of baseball skills (i.e. hitting a curve, though it may or may not apply here).

Jim Albright